Threat versus Risk. Is Chertoff correct?

Question

The threat may be real, but what is the risk element of it happening and you being involved in a terrorist attack. Chertoff says stop the hysteria. For once I have to agree with him.

Answer 1

I'm a Risk Manager, my job is to evaluate threats and determine what the likelihood they will occur is... or in other words to determine the risk of it occuring.

We cannot ever be 100% safe. Most security measures are reactive to either an event that occurred or one that was thwarted (such as the London terrorist arrests in August.) We can only hope to mitigate our risks or limit our loss, total security would require hampering our liberties to unacceptable levels, but even then we would not be 100% safe.

As horrific as 9/11 was, the fact that it is not preventable and can recur at anytime is the reality. Time to move on with life.

Answer 2

I like Jesi's answer (or is it her avatar).
I am old enough to remember the scare mongering that went on in the 60s about the impending nuclear holocaust. It was a risk certainly, but in real terms it was too remote to get het up about. but some people did, viz Bob Dylan's Hard Rain.
You just have to get on with life. I mean, what if you were to die tomorrow? However much you would like to, you can't live your life as if today was going to be your last.

Answer 3

I'm not willing to gamble on the lives of my children being taken in a terrorist attack. I say we continue to fight. I know you won't give 10 points for arguing with you, but if you had kids it may be a different story for you.

If you are strictly talking about fear then there is no need for that. If you are saying we should stop fighting them then I have to disagree.

Answer 4

I totally agree as well....

crap the second time today I've agreed with a politician...

Answer 5

true, but think of the people on the four planes a year ago, did they ever think they would be involved in a terror plot?